this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2026
288 points (97.7% liked)
Memes of Production
1465 readers
714 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
America is a system of checks and balances. One of those being primary elections. Americans continue to give incumbent DNCs a free pass while MAGA continues to primary challenge anyone not extreme enough.
Knock Down The House which lays out the steps. IMO it's how AOC got elected that is the key to fixing America. Americans need to make that happen every single election. Systematic problems need more than 1 presidential term to reverse after all.
Independent local grassroots electoral movement. Dedicated to getting/organizing volunteers, signature gathering, door knocking, everything from getting candidates on the ballot to winning in the election.
Candidate nominations. AOC didn't sign up, her BIL or someone nominated her and the Grassroots Movement approached her to run.
PRIMARIES. PRIMARIES. PRIMARIES. Target establishment DNCs who clearly have more in common with corporate lobbyists than their own constituents.
Run the numbers game. Only 1/4 of their candidates won. Democrats should face a primary EVERY SINGLE ELECTION.
Trump has long since buldozed through all of those fabled checks and balances, proving them to be build upon nothing but good faith.
Honestly this question doesn't deserve a response. You can do better.
False dichotomy.
Besides, if Americans are too lazy to vote they certainty wont revolt. Especially revolution edge lords. You guys are the laziest.
I mean, that's definitely not a false dichotomy, that's a real dichotomy...fixing it does not destroy it and destroying it doesn't fix it...they're definitely mutually exclusive lol
And I agree, the american left is cooked, no doubt. I used to be an energized organizer and I am pretty burned out. Call it lazy if you like! Still, no matter how much energy I have i'm not wasting any of it on bourgeois party politics, supporting one heinous future or another.
Okay. Well first I apologize for lumping you in with the edge lords.
So the false dichotomy is that the system functioning as designed requires the entire thing to be destroyed.
The usa is a system in which the american people are the most powerful and fundamental of the checks and balances. However Americans have checked out and stopped participating. The system is working, it's Americans that need to do their part.
I deal with violence as a profession. So I have grave concerns about the ability of Americans to successfully destroy the system, and even graver concerns about the ability to rebuild institutions after the fact.
Why would billionaires destroy a system designed to serve them that's impervious to the will of the working class? IMO the "destroy the system" people have both given up and are playing right into the Epstein Class' hand.
Hmm, I think you may have missed the point of the meme? Your point 1 seems to just be an articulation of the first panel (a liberal idealist perspective: "the system is broken, we need to fix it"). If the second panel isn't clear (the left materialist perspective), maybe this helps.
1 Power to the people
The statement "the system is working as intended" is to point out that our only two options are two bourgeois classes, both hellbent on exploiting working people as much as possible. There cannot be other options...this is the system. It's working as intended...it was intended to be a committee of the bourgeoisie to arrange their affairs, and it serves that function fine, whether the American people turn up to "legitimize" it with their rubber stamp approving of Bourgeois Party A or Bourgeois Party B, or stay home. It doesn't really matter. It doesn't matter whether it's trump or Obama or Reagan or FDR. All of them represent the system continuing to work as intended: a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The people's lack of power is intended.
2 Violence
If you deal with violence, you probably know how unbelievably expensive state violence is. It requires bullets and bombs, it requires food and clothing, it requires administration and healthcare. These are things that can only be provided by the working class. Destroying the system is unquestionably possible, the question is, what's the cost, and is it worth it?
Rebuilding, is an issue too, for sure. That's why dual power and organization are so important! Though I'd be pretty surprised if the struggle of destroying the system wouldn't create the organization necessary to rebuild.
3 Billionaires?
The billionaires would not destroy such a system? I'm not sure what you mean by this point...the system is great for them...and I don't just mean under trump, it's been great for them the whole time (and always will be - which is why destroying it is correct and "fixing" it is not)
I was 100% knee jerk reacting to your meme.
Yeah, I mean, that's fine. I think that your knee-jerk reaction is negative shows that we have a real disagreement :P I'm not trying to be pedantic about the "false dichotomy" thing!
Forget all that; let's talk about the more interesting question of whether the system is designed to support the people, and therefore must be fixed, or if it's designed to oppress the people, and therefore must be destroyed.
I think that's really what you wanted to respond to, right?
Yeah, the more I thought about it the answer was obvious.
Basically.
Idk. This elections/ primaries since 2024 have been a mixed bag. Its pretty difficult when you've got elections like Illinois 9th, where the only viable progressive candidate has to face down two AIPAC funded candidates at once, while Mike_from_PA is putting her on blast for not being a "perfect progressive". And she still came within two points. This came on the tails of the Jersey race where the AIPAC candidates cannibalized and the progressive made it through. AIPAC reorganized, re-strategized, and got their candidates through across the board that Tuesday, while the Tankie coalition ate up the slop and tore down the one chance we had at getting a socialist into that safe blue seat.
Just saying that Knock Down The House is getting more and more out of date, and elections are changing in REAL time, with extraordinary pressure being placed on candidates, with fundraising expectations being raised to basically impossible levels. AND EVEN when the fundraising goals are met, thats still not necessarily enough when we've got an entire pro-Israel/ pro-Zionism media apparatus working to shut candidates down.
I'm not saying it couldn't work, but a big part of AOC's victory was catching an incumbent off guard in a safe blue seat. They're on their guard now. If AOC was running today, I think she would still win, but it would be much more difficult.
First off. Did you watch the documentary? Because saying its out of date tells me you didn't.
It worked because they brought together people who normally wouldn't vote. Less than 2/3s of americans vote. So this is entirely replicable.
If indeed >50% of americans are maga racists than the United States will dissolve.
edit: I'm Canadian and I will never set foot in the USA again. If y'all wanna roll over that's your prerogative.
Bruh I literally phone banked on her campaign in 2018. And I worked Bernies 2016 campaign. And more campaigns in 20', and 22', and 24, and even as recently as a few weeks ago. And I stand by my point that what it takes to win elections has changed since 2018. I'm not saying the basics of the formula don't apply, but incumbents are far more aware of their vulnerabilities than they were previously.
I promise you, that if you did a lift and shift of AOC's 2018 campaign in a new district (not that its even possible), you wont win. The incumbents are ready for you. Mamdani is a great example of how you start with the AOC/ Bernie approach as the basis, but adapt to changing times. Just like AOC's 2018 run was a huge change in how to run a campaign, 2026 campaigns also need to continually shift tactics. And I agree whole-heartedly with the voter registration aspect and getting non-voters engaged.
Insurgent strategies have to continue to adapt and change, because incumbent strategies also continue to adapt and change.
So you didn't watch it. It's actually about 5 candidates not just AOC. Everything you just said is addressed in the documentary by people who've been phone banking and door knocking since before you were born.
Just fuckin watch it god damn buddy jfc
Dude. Its a 6 year old documentary. It can't address my criticisms.
You don't know what you don't know.
Can lead a horse to water... but you can't make him think.
You can engage with the points I've made or you can continue to suck your own dick.
But its clear which path you've chosen.
Have you ever run a campaign or been a part of one?
This whole conversation is you trying to refute media you're too lazy to watch. So no I don't need to respect your opinions on this matter.
And yes. I have,
just click the fucking link and watch the stupid documentary ya fuckin turd
edit: I'd happily engage your criticisms if you weren't expecting me to waste my time refuting arguments you're literally pulling from your ass
I've seen the documentary. I worked the fucking campaigns in the fucking documentary you fucking dunce. I'm still working fucking campaigns you cynical cunt. I've worked winning campaigns and I've worked losing campaigns. I have a pretty good fucking calculus around what it takes to win an election.
You could just abandon your cynicism and engage with the points I've made, but that would require you to stop sucking your own dick for a few minutes, and since thats seemingly never possible for you, I don't think we should be holding our breath.
I don't believe that you watched it based on what you say about it. Sorry.
Literally the only thing I said is that its getting increasingly out of date because establishment candidates, in the 11 years since the Bernie campaign, have become aware of how insurgent campaigns organize, and have adjusted accordingly.
Then I provided an example of exactly that happening in a recent race.
You can just engage with the point, but instead you chose to masturbate.
I already refuted that point x2
That's an ongoing issue that's addressed in detail and mitigated in the documentary.
Also the number of non voters means there is plenty of opportunity for grass roots campaigns to outreach the outreach of incumbents. The notion that incumbents being prepared for challengers makes primarying them impossible is a non sequitur.
No you didn't. Put the fuck up or shut the fuck up.
Then why are insurgent campaigns not winning across the board? They're by and large ALL following variations of the exact playbook outlined in the documentary (which is based largely on the Bernie Blueprint, a document we made after the 2016 primary, where we meticulously documented everything that made the campaign work)
What is it they failed to do? Why aren't we always getting the "right results" if insurgent campaigns are (and they by and large are) doing what the documentary identifies as appropriate strategy?
Its because the environment has shifted as a result of the establishment recognizing their vulnerabilities. And thats not to say all of it isn't working, but as a result of the success of insurgent campaigns, establishment campaigns are changing how they operate as well.
I never said it was impossible, but because of the successes of campaigns like Bernies, AOC, Talib, Omar, Bush, Bowman, and I could go on, because of the success of those campaigns, incumbents recognize the need to change their approaches. And some of those same campaigns, they just lost back in '24 (Bush, Bowman). And, I'm sorry to say, the lost because establishment strategists have had the time to analyze how grassroots campaigns work, and have adjusted accordingly.
Campaigning and campaign strategy is in an arms race, and yes, the suite of 2018 candidates made huge advances on the grassroots side, but the basic outline is hardly a panacea. And if you aren't constantly updating your strategies and also adapting and localizing those strategies to a particular district, you're gonna get smoked. You could not run AOC's 2018 campaign today and expect the same outcome. You need to adapt to the moment.
Are you suggesting that if a grassroots campaign doesn't win its because they didn't do enough outreach? Why don't you try and be more precise here? You talk like someone who has never been on a campaign, but you said you have, so what campaigns were you a part of?
Bro you're crashing out cuz I'm telling you to watch a documentary.
Also leading with a logical fallacy doesn't incentivize me to read your rant.
Bruh no one is "crashing out", you just wont engage with the fact that the world has changed since 2018. Which you could just acknowledge, but for some reason you've decided a documentary made to inspire highschoolers and to convince NPR liberals they know more than they do is the high watermark for political campaign strategy.
Like, you genuinely have to address the issue that, by and large, all insurgent campaigns since Bernies initially run have.. pretty much entirely adopted the political calculus which the documentary outlines. But in 2026 thats not enough. Establishment candidates know you'll be using those strategies, and they have built up tools and strategies to try and counter those strategies. If you don't update, you lose.
65.3 % of americans voted in 2024.
I think previously you were.. something something non-sequiters?
Whats your answer for when AIPAC helicopters in ~~10~~ 31mil^1^ in PAC money to the house race you are managing? When they start setting up shell PAC's like Elect Chicago Women, and use it to run ads for the zionist candidates? What do you do when AIPAC shells are paying TikTokers 1500 a post to say something negative about a candidate, per post?
There are not answers to those question in the documentary, because when it was being made, those candidates didn't face the same battles current candidates do. And current candidates face these challenges, in part, because of the success of candidates like AOC, Talib, Omar. The environment is fundamentally different.
1: 10 mil was the early estimate. AIPAC spent 31 mil to stop the progressive.
Editing in some more detail.. because this is fun and its fun to run dunks, but its also good to prep for more competent opponents than you.
In 2018, AOC raised 600k from small dollar donors to fund her campaign. She left the campaign with 370k banked. In Kat Abughazaleh's recent race (which she lost), she raised nearly 3.5 million from the same class and size of donation as AOC.
if you can't articulate your argument, no one should believe you nor devote their time to watching your favorite film